Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Muthusamy Shanmugam on 19 August, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
T.C.A.No.169 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
T.C.A.No.169 of 2024
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ward-2(2),
Chennai - 600 034. ... Appellant
-Vs-
Muthusamy Shanmugam,
C/o.Ramesh & Ramachandran, CAs ... Respondent
PRAYER : Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,
Chennai dated 30.11.2023 in I.T.A.No.362/Chny/2023 for the assessment year
2013-14.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Karthick
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated
30.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai in
I.T.A.No.362/Chny/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal
with the following observations:
" .....
9. We observe that the aforesaid information
as was placed before the Commissioner of Income
Tax (International Taxation), Chennai was incorrect
and misleading. We observe that the return of
income as was filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-
14 on 11.09.2013 was assessed by the Id. AO
u/s.143(3) of the Act. The Id. AO after consideration
of the details submitted by the assessee had
disallowed the claim for deduction of amount as was
paid as Securities Transaction Tax. The Id. AO vide
assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act had recomputed the
loss from short term capital gain at Rs.6,81,26,133/-
instead of Rs.6,90,56,034/- and finally recomputed
the income from long term capital gains at
Rs.47,24,45,389/- vide order dated 30.0302016.
10. In view of the obtention of approval for
reopening the assessment dated 30.03.2016 by
stating incorrect / misleading information in the
proposal for approval by the Income Tax Officer
and reopening the assessment cannot be upheld
legally. It was not a fact that the return of income
filed by the assessee on 11.09.2013 was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
assessed u/s.143(3) of the Act. The said return of
income was assessed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the Id.
AO after considering the details as was submitted
by the assessee and completed the assessment vide
order dated 30.03.2016.
11. As the approval for re-assessment was
obtained by placing misleading and incorrect
information from the concerned authority by the
Income Tax Officer, we decide the appeal in favour
of the assessee and set aside the reassessment order
passed by the Id. AO dated 25.01.2023 and restore
the original assessment order dated 30.03.2016.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is
allowed."
3. The case of the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed grave
error in allowing the assessee's appeal despite the contrary directions issued by
the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144(C)(5) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 on 19.12.2022. It is submitted that although the amount involved is below
the tax effect, the circular dated 16.09.2019 in F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-
ITJ(pt.) stipulates that the Department can pursue the appeal wherever the
bogus claim is made. It is further submitted that the assessee has wrongly
claimed short term capital loss / long term capital gains and therefore, the
impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal.
5. In our considered view, no substantial question of law had arisen for
consideration. What was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant are
purely a questions of fact and not questions of law. It is the case of the
Department that the Tribunal has come to a wrong conclusion based on the
erroneous appreciation of the facts. If that be so, it is for the appellant Income
Tax Department to move suitable application for rectification of the order.
6. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and
accordingly, it is dismissed with a liberty to the appellant to move suitable
application, if any, for rectification of the impugned order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. There shall be however no order as to costs.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
19.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ward-2(2),
Chennai - 600 034.
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'b' Bench,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
vji
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
